DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 230: an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 230: an Overview Section 230: An Overview April 7, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46751 SUMMARY R46751 Section 230: An Overview April 7, 2021 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, provides limited federal immunity to providers and users of interactive Valerie C. Brannon computer services. The law generally precludes providers and users from being held liable—that Legislative Attorney is, legally responsible—for information provided by a third party, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content. Courts have interpreted Section 230 to foreclose a wide variety of lawsuits Eric N. Holmes and to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. For Legislative Attorney example, the law has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content. Two provisions of Section 230 are the primary framework for this immunity. First, Section 230(c)(1) specifies that service providers and users may not “be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., an influential case interpreting this provision, a federal appeals court said that Section 230(c)(1) bars “lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.” Second, Section 230(c)(2) states that service providers and users may not be held liable for voluntarily acting in good faith to restrict access to “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material. Section 230(c)(2) is thus more limited: it applies only to good-faith takedowns of objectionable material, while courts have interpreted Section 230(c)(1) to apply to both distribution and takedown decisions. Section 230 contains statutory exceptions. This federal immunity generally will not apply to suits brought under federal criminal law, intellectual property law, any state law “consistent” with Section 230, certain privacy laws applicable to electronic communications, or certain federal and state laws relating to sex trafficking. In recent years, legislators and outside commentators have debated the proper scope of Section 230. While the law does have a number of defenders, others have argued that courts have interpreted Section 230 immunity too broadly. In the 116th Congress, 26 bills would have amended the scope of Section 230 immunity. These proposals ranged from outright repeal, to placing certain conditions on immunity, to creating narrower exceptions allowing certain types of lawsuits. Some bills sought to amend the scope of Section 230(c)(1), limiting “publisher” immunity in an attempt to encourage sites to take down certain types of undesirable content. Others sought to encourage sites to host more content by narrowing immunity for certain types of takedown decisions. The executive branch also weighed in on Section 230 reform in 2020, with proposals from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Department of Justice. One issue raised by these proposals concerned whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory authority to implement Section 230. While the FCC generally has authority to administer the Communications Act of 1934, to date, the FCC has not played a role in interpreting or applying Section 230, and Section 230 does not explicitly mention the FCC. Commentators have thus disputed whether Congress intended to vest the FCC with regulatory authority over Section 230 and whether the statute contains any ambiguous language that could be clarified through FCC regulation. In addition, proposals to amend Section 230 may raise two distinct types of First Amendment issues. The first issue is whether any given proposal infringes the constitutionally protected speech of either providers or users. This concern may be especially acute if a proposal restricts providers’ editorial discretion or creates content- or viewpoint-based distinctions. The second issue is whether, if Section 230 is repealed in whole or in part, the First Amendment may nonetheless prevent private parties or the government from holding providers liable for publishing content. The First Amendment might prevent some claims premised on decisions to host or restrict others’ speech, but its protections are likely less extensive than the current scope of Section 230 immunity. Congressional Research Service Section 230: An Overview Contents Text and Legislative History ........................................................................................................... 1 Section 104: Online Family Empowerment .............................................................................. 5 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ........................................................................ 6 Judicial Interpretation ...................................................................................................................... 8 Section 230(c)(1): Publisher Activity ........................................................................................ 9 Early Interpretations: Zeran v. America Online, Inc. ........................................................ 10 Service Provider Role as Publisher .................................................................................... 11 Information Provided by Another Information Content Provider ..................................... 14 Section 230(c)(2)(A): Restricting Access to Objectionable Material...................................... 19 Good Faith ........................................................................................................................ 20 Objectionable Material...................................................................................................... 21 Section 230(c)(2)(B): Enabling Access Restriction ................................................................ 22 Section 230(e): Exceptions ..................................................................................................... 24 Federal Criminal Law ....................................................................................................... 24 Intellectual Property Law .................................................................................................. 25 State Law .......................................................................................................................... 27 Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ............................................................. 28 Sex Trafficking Law (FOSTA).......................................................................................... 28 Reform Proposals and Considerations for Congress ..................................................................... 29 Overview of Reform Proposals ............................................................................................... 30 FCC ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Existing Legal Authority ................................................................................................... 37 Deference to FCC Regulation ........................................................................................... 40 Considerations for Congress ............................................................................................. 42 Free Speech Considerations .................................................................................................... 42 Background Principles ...................................................................................................... 43 First Amendment Issues with Reform Proposals .............................................................. 47 Comparing the Operation of First Amendment and Section 230 Protections ................... 52 Contacts Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 54 Congressional Research Service Section 230: An Overview n 1996, Congress passed a suite of measures to amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to protect children on the internet. The new measures were known collectively as the Communications Decency Act (CDA).1 Some portions of the CDA directly imposed liability I 2 for transmitting obscene or harassing material online, including two provisions that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 1997.3 The CDA’s new Section 230 of the Communications Act4 took a different approach.5 It sought to allow users and providers of “interactive computer services” to make their own content moderation decisions, while still permitting liability in certain limited contexts.6 Since its passage, federal courts have interpreted Section 230 as creating expansive immunity for claims based on third-party content that appears online.7 Consequently, internet companies and users frequently rely on Section 230’s protections to avoid liability in federal and state litigation. But in recent years, commentators and jurists have expressed concern that the broad immunity courts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Research Library Perspectives June 2021 by Katherine Klosek
    Issue Brief Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Research Library Perspectives June 2021 By Katherine Klosek With thanks to Jonathan Band, General Counsel at ARL; Greg Cram, Director of Copyright, Permissions & Information Policy at New York Public Library; and Judy Ruttenberg, Senior Director of Scholarship and Policy at ARL Introduction 3 Background 3 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 5 Libraries and Section 230 7 FOSTA: The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafcking Act 9 Discussion 10 Appendix: Discussion Guide 12 Access to Information 12 Afordability 12 Anti-harassment 12 Diversity 13 Open Internet 13 Political Neutrality/Freedom of Expression 14 Privacy 14 Issue Brief: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—June 2021 2 Introduction The 117th US Congress is holding hearings and debating bills on changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a 1996 law that protects internet service providers and internet users from liability for content shared by third parties. When it was enacted, Section 230 ofered liability protections for then- nascent services that are integral to the development of the internet we have today. But Section 230 has come under fre from Democrats who believe internet service providers are not engaging in responsible content moderation, and from Republicans who believe that large social media companies censor conservative voices. This myopic debate ignores the longstanding role that research libraries have played as internet service providers, and the vast experience research libraries have in moderating and publishing content. More information on this topic can be found in the “Discussion” section of this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Communication Decency Act's Section
    Legal Sidebari Liability for Content Hosts: An Overview of the Communication Decency Act’s Section 230 Valerie C. Brannon Legislative Attorney June 6, 2019 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), broadly protects online service providers like social media companies from being held liable for transmitting or taking down user-generated content. In part because of this broad immunity, social media platforms and other online content hosts have largely operated without outside regulation, resulting in a mostly self-policing industry. However, while the immunity created by Section 230 is significant, it is not absolute. For example, courts have said that if a service provider “passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties,” Section 230 immunity will apply; but if the service provider helps to develop the problematic content, it may be subject to liability. Commentators and regulators have questioned in recent years whether Section 230 goes too far in immunizing service providers. In 2018, Congress created a new exception to Section 230 in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, commonly known as FOSTA. Post-FOSTA, Section 230 immunity will not apply to bar claims alleging violations of certain sex trafficking laws. Some have argued that Congress should further narrow Section 230 immunity—or even repeal it entirely. This Sidebar provides background information on Section 230, reviewing its history, text, and interpretation in the courts. Legislative History Section 230 was enacted in early 1996, in the CDA’s Section 509, titled “Online Family Empowerment.” In part, this provision responded to a 1995 decision issued by a New York state trial court: Stratton- Oakmont, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for a More Fractured Web the Central Services Under Siege Built Global-Scale Networks
    Preparing for a More Fractured Web The central services under siege built global-scale networks. If policy trends hold, what comes next? Andrea O’Sullivan hat’s your worry about Silicon ad-based business model supporting much Valley? Most everyone has one. of big tech. Maybe you’re concerned about For some, it allows impolitic privacy. It could be a combination of many Wspeech to flourish online. If you’re like things. Whatever your persuasion, there me, you’re more bothered by the threat of is usually some good reason to resist big targeted content controls. Or you might American technology companies. fear that some companies have just gotten This essay will not debate the merits or a little too big. Maybe you dislike the entire demerits of any particular tech criticism. The JOURNAL of The JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE Readers can find many such commentaries These trends herald a future where data tailored to their own liking elsewhere on localization, which limits how information the world wide web. Instead, I will discuss can be used across borders, is the norm.5 how the many forces converging against Regulating data means regulating American technology companies may result commerce. Although framed as a way in a new web that is less, well, worldwide. to bring tech companies in line, data What might such an internet look like? regulations affect anyone who engages in We already have a good inkling. Most online commerce: that is to say, almost people have heard of one longstanding everyone with a computer and a connection. internet faultline: the so-called Great To a foreign retailer, for instance, data Firewall of China.1 Residents of China controls might as well be a trade control.6 cannot easily access major parts of the Then there are content controls.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Choose a Search Engine Or Directory
    How to Choose a Search Engine or Directory Fields & File Types If you want to search for... Choose... Audio/Music AllTheWeb | AltaVista | Dogpile | Fazzle | FindSounds.com | Lycos Music Downloads | Lycos Multimedia Search | Singingfish Date last modified AllTheWeb Advanced Search | AltaVista Advanced Web Search | Exalead Advanced Search | Google Advanced Search | HotBot Advanced Search | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Domain/Site/URL AllTheWeb Advanced Search | AltaVista Advanced Web Search | AOL Advanced Search | Google Advanced Search | Lycos Advanced Search | MSN Search Search Builder | SearchEdu.com | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search File Format AllTheWeb Advanced Web Search | AltaVista Advanced Web Search | AOL Advanced Search | Exalead Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Geographic location Exalead Advanced Search | HotBot Advanced Search | Lycos Advanced Search | MSN Search Search Builder | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Images AllTheWeb | AltaVista | The Amazing Picture Machine | Ditto | Dogpile | Fazzle | Google Image Search | IceRocket | Ixquick | Mamma | Picsearch Language AllTheWeb Advanced Web Search | AOL Advanced Search | Exalead Advanced Search | Google Language Tools | HotBot Advanced Search | iBoogie Advanced Web Search | Lycos Advanced Search | MSN Search Search Builder | Teoma Advanced Search | Yahoo Advanced Web Search Multimedia & video All TheWeb | AltaVista | Dogpile | Fazzle | IceRocket | Singingfish | Yahoo Video Search Page Title/URL AOL Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Google V. Hood
    Case 3:14-cv-00981-HTW-LRA Document 37-1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION GOOGLE, INC. PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-981-HTW-LRA JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY DEFENDANT PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE INTERNATIONAL ANTICOUNTERFEITING COALITION I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (“IACC”) is a nonprofit corporation recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(6). It has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. The IACC was established in 1979 to combat counterfeiting and piracy by promoting laws, regulations, directives, and relationships designed to render the theft of intellectual property undesirable and unprofitable. 1 Counterfeiting and piracy are scourges that threaten consumer health and safety and drain billions of dollars from the U.S. economy. The IACC is the oldest and largest organization in the country devoted exclusively to combating these threats. Today the IACC’s members include more than 230 companies in the pharmaceutical, health and beauty, automotive, fashion, food and beverage, computer and electronics, and entertainment industries, among others. The IACC offers anti-counterfeiting programs designed to increase protection for patents, trademarks, copyrights, service marks, trade dress and trade secrets. Critical to the IACC's 1 IACC states that no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief; and no person, other than the amicus curiae and its members, contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Staff Analysis Bill #: Hb 7013
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 7013 PCB COM 21-01 Technology Transparency SPONSOR(S): Commerce Committee, Ingoglia TIED BILLS: HB 7015 IDEN./SIM. BILLS: REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF Orig. Comm.: Commerce Committee 16 Y, 8 N Wright Hamon 1) Appropriations Committee 19 Y, 8 N Topp Pridgeon 2) Judiciary Committee SUMMARY ANALYSIS A section of the Federal Communications Decency Act (Section 230) provides immunity from liability for information service providers and social media platforms that, in good faith, remove or restrict from their services information deemed “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” While this immunity has fostered the growth of certain parts of the internet, recently, there have been criticisms of the broad federal immunity provision due to actions taken or not taken regarding the censorship of users by internet platforms. Government regulators have recently investigated and initiated cases against certain platforms for antitrust activities. The bill provides that a social media platform must: publish standards used for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users, and apply such standards in a consistent manner. inform each user about any changes to its user rules, terms, and agreements before implementing the changes and may not make changes more than once every 30 days. notify the user within 30 days of censoring or deplatforming. provide a user with information relating to the number of other individuals who were provided or shown the user's content or posts upon request by the user.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade Lost I ABOUT the AUTHORS
    A DECADE LOST i ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) brings together and expands the rich array of teaching, research, clinical, internship, and publishing activities undertaken within New York University (NYU) School of Law on international human rights issues. Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman are the Center’s Faculty co-Chairs; Smita Narula and Margaret Satterthwaite are Faculty Directors; Jayne Huckerby is Research Director; and Veerle Opgenhaffen is Senior Program Director. The Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law provides high quality, professional human rights lawyering services to individual clients and non-governmental and inter-governmental human rights organizations, partnering with groups based in the United States and abroad. Working as legal advisers, counsel, co-counsel, or advocacy partners, Clinic students work side-by-side with human rights activists from around the world. The Clinic is directed by Professor Margaret Satterthwaite and in Fall 2010 to Spring 2011 was co-taught with Adjunct Assistant Professor Jayne Huckerby; Diana Limongi is Clinic Administrator. All publications and statements of the CHRGJ can be found at its website: www.chrgj.org. This Report should be cited as: Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011). © NYU School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice A DECADE LOST 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Global Justice Clinic (GJC)/Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University (NYU) School of Law acknowledges the following individuals for their contributions in the preparation of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation Supporting the Appellee and Urging Affirmance ______
    __________________________________ No. 10-10038 __________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DAVID NOSAL, Defendant-Appellee __________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTICT OF CALIFORNIA __________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE APPELLEE AND URGING AFFIRMANCE __________________________________ Marcia Hofmann Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993 – facsimile Attorney for Amicus Curiae ____________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................ii DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION .................................................................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE.......................................................... v I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................................. 2 III. ARGUMENT....................................................................................... 5 A. The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Does Not Prohibit Mere Violation Of Corporate Policies .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media Immunity in 2021 and Beyond: Will Platforms Continue to Avoid Litigation Exposure Faced by Offline Counterparts
    Social Media Immunity in 2021 and Beyond: Will Platforms Continue to Avoid Litigation Exposure Faced by Offline Counterparts By: Peter J. Pizzi Peter J. Pizzi, CIPPE/US, is a business trial lawyer with decades of experience in commercial litigation, internal investigations, technology litigation, eDiscovery, and labor and employment law. A Certified Civil Trial Attorney, Peter represents corporate clients in a broad array of industries, including healthcare, pharmaceuticals, financial services, information technology, cosmetics, industrial equipment, food service and others. Recent highlights include a federal court jury verdict on a contract claim arising from an acquisition and pre-discovery dismissals of consumer class actions in the convenience store retail and private aviation industries. A member of the New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania bars, Peter is former Chair of IADC’s Cyber Security, Data Privacy and Technology Committee. URING the 2020 election cycle, companies from being held liable for both the United States transmitting or taking down user- D presidential candidates generated content (UGC). Twice in called for changes to Section 230 of 2020, the Senate held hearings, with the Communications Decency Act of both sides demanding change to the 1996, which protects online service statute and to platform moderation providers like social media practices.1 Then, following the 1 Cat Zakrzewski and Rachel Lerman, The election was a chance for Facebook and Twitter to show they could control misinformation. Now lawmakers are grilling them on it, WASH. POST (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/techno 2 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL | JULY 2021 January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot, I. Origins Donald Trump and others within his circle were de-platformed by Defamation actions brought in Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 230 Legislation in the 117Th Congress
    Section 230 Legislation in the 117th Congress 47 USC 230, commonly referred to as Section 230, was passed as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 provides immunity for website platforms for third-party content posted on their platforms and allows platforms to remove or restrict content the service provider finds objectionable. This immunity has allowed the ad-supported internet to grow over the past 25 years without publishers facing crippling lawsuits for user-posted content. Both parties have raised issues about this immunity and support repeal or modification – for different reasons. Republicans, including Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), believe that platforms use Section 230 to censor the views of conservatives. Democrats, such as Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), want to remove the protections of Section 230 from ads and paid content, while allowing users to sue over content that threatens them with harassment or discrimination. Senate Bill Number Bill Title S. 47 Adversarial Platform Prevention Act of 2021 (APP Act) Sponsor Description Rubio (R-FL) This bill would require owners and operators of covered foreign software to provide consumers with a warning prior to the download of the software and requires annual reports to the FTC and DOJ on the privacy practices of the owner concerning US users. It would also remove Section 230 protection from owners of covered foreign software. Cosponsors History None 1.26.2021: Introduced in Senate 1.26.2021: Referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Bill Number Bill Title S.
    [Show full text]
  • Insert Catchy Title
    Addressing Tomorrow’s Terrorists Andrew Peterson* American anti-terrorism laws are insufficient to address the next wave of global terrorism. When President Bush declared that the United States had begun a “war on terror,”1 the entire government began to reorient itself to tackle America’s newest “generational challenge.”2 The Department of Justice (DOJ) joined this massive effort, declaring in a new Strategic Plan that its focus was not simply to prosecute terrorists for crimes, but to “[p]revent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur.”3 Despite its constant talk of reorientation, however, DOJ has been limited in its ability to creatively address the war on terror for one simple reason: many of the relevant federal criminal statutes are poorly constructed. Prior to September 1994, there were no federal criminal prohibitions that specifically punished material support for terrorism. Prosecutors had to rely instead on generic federal crimes, such as murder and money laundering, or on a variety of statutes condemning specific acts of terrorism, such as air piracy or hostage taking. After the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, this situation rapidly changed. Legislators hastily drafted a number of statutes and amendments that sought to address the domestic terrorist threat. Acting in response to public demand for quick, decisive action, Congress generally maximized the scope of anti-terror prohibitions while overriding any legal obstacles to quick prosecution that were presented by the judiciary. Although it is difficult to fault Congress for acting decisively, the bedrock of counterterrorism enforcement laid down by these statutes is deeply flawed.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Terrorism: the Potential Chilling Effect on the Internet of Broad Law Enforcement Legislation
    St. John's Law Review Volume 80 Number 2 Volume 80, Spring 2006, Number 2 Article 5 Beyond Terrorism: The Potential Chilling Effect on the Internet of Broad Law Enforcement Legislation Todd M. Gardella Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND TERRORISM: THE POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT ON THE INTERNET OF BROAD LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION TODD M. GARDELLAt INTRODUCTION Terrorists manipulate themselves to society's center stage by exploiting the omnipresence of the media within the modern information age. It is generally understood that, for so much as the cause of modern international terrorism seems to cast itself as diametrically opposed to western values and modernity, its proponents are unafraid to utilize the Internet to further their goals of disruption and destruction. In many ways, the information age is the great enabler of terrorism, providing not only the channels for terrorists to communicate amongst themselves throughout the globe, but also providing them the opportunity to amplify their voice, spread their message, and permeate the homes of those plugged into the modern world of interconnectivity. Both the ubiquity of the Internet and its connection with terrorism distinguish the new millennial era from previous eras of war or crises. The United States' war on terrorism comprises a global effort; terrorism's war on the United States pervades the consciousness of the interconnected multitudes in an effort to shatter our political will.1 In many ways, the decentralized, networked, and amorphous characteristics of the Internet resemble those of the modern terrorist infrastructure.
    [Show full text]